Skip to main content
1:30 pm
deliver services, meals for late meetings that all might be -- could we perhaps, the president and the vice-president take a glimpse at it so we know it's properly projected for the two years to come? >> sure, we could do that >> commissioner sugaya. >> in previous years, we've had a much more detailed budget to look at in materials of line items, and i don't know if you've seen those, but we used to have them that were pages long and it was rather interesting to see by line item what the expenditures were for staff and other things. >> are you referring to the work program with like the fte counts? >> yes. >> and i think that addresses commissioner moore's question also, in two weeks, your memo will have that level of detail where it shows the proposed fte
1:31 pm
count widths the initiatives, if you want the actual dollar amounts, i can provide you with what you need. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to add a comment that in the past year, since this is not our standard everyday literature, just reading it, it is more difficult to understand and then having to vote on it after you make a presentation sometimes raises more questions than answers so i'm wondering if we could spread that with the presentation and then vote in on it a week later or something like that. i always feel a little bit overwhelmed because it's so hard to understand. >> if i may, today is just an informational hearing for what we're proposing at this time and in two weeks, we will be coming and asking for you to vote on the budget and we've also already made a presentation on the preliminary cut of the department's work program a few weeks ago, so we will be coming a total of three time tos the planning
1:32 pm
commission with budget information, hopefully that's a sufficient amount of time that has elapsed during presentations and if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> any additional comments? >> that would place you under item 10 for case number 2000.61be, bren nan street/1 henry adams street project, the proposed project has two sites. >> commissioner hillis? >> commissioners, as i did last time, i need to ask for a recusal as well as items 11a and 11b for the same reasons, i work for fort mason center. >> commissioner antonini, moved to recuse him? >> second.
1:33 pm
>> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, i have a question for mr. hillis, in past situations, i've had conflicts because i've worked on portions of environmental impact reports, in that case t city attorney's office ruled that i should recuse myself aon the eir portion but i was eligible and they felt comfortable in my participating and voting on the actual project. in this case, it would -- i don't know, i'm not the attorney, but did you ask whether or not you could participate in the eir portion versus the project portion? because it would seem your conflict relates more to the actual approval of the projects rather than the technicalities and the contents of the environmental impact report. >> we did talk about this, okay, do you want to mention it? >> i mean, if they've already
1:34 pm
said -- >> yeah, it's one project, the advice was to recuse myself from both. >> alright, thank you. >> we have a motion and a second. >> commissioners, on the motion to recuse commissioner hillis from items 10 and 11a and b. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously and commissioner hillis is hereby reused. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission, i'm debra dwire, planning department staff, the item before you is the certification of an eir for the proposed 801 gran nan street and 1 henry adams street, it would include demolition to have concourse exhibition hall and demolition of three existing commercial industrial
1:35 pm
building on the 1 henry adams site, there would be two mixed use and residential use alt the 1 henry adams site, they would be 68 feet tall, the eastern most portion would be a partial fulfillment of the inclusionary housing requirements. up to 150 units of affordable housing would be constructed on that portion of the 801 brannan site, there are three project variance proposed, variant 1 would include new construction of two mixed use and retail building on the 801 brannan site which variance 3 would also include two buildings on the 801 brannan site, but variance 1 and 2 would not change development on the 1
1:36 pm
henry adams site from what is proposed on the project but would not include land dedication to the city. total development would include 1 million 187 thousand 943 gross square feet with up to 824 residential units, approximately 54 thousand 600 retail space and 866 parking spaces, since publication of the draft eir, variance three is the proposed project, a copy of the draft eir certification motion is before you, the public hearing on the draft eir was held on july 28, 2011. the public comment period
1:37 pm
closed. it was published and distributed on january 10, 2013. subsequent to publication of the responses to comments document, a correction has been identified. on page 120 of the responses to comments, there is a typographical error, in the response aq1, the phrase no more than 5 thousand vehicle trips per day should be changed to no more than 6 thousand vehicle trips per day in both the first paragraph and last paragraph, these text changes do not represent any new information that would alter the conclusions presented in the draft eir according to the bay area air quality management district emissions sources such as the vehicle trips from the project that are less than 10 thousand vehicle trips per day are considered minor sources. consequently, they do not trigger the need to recirculate the draft eir pursuant to the
1:38 pm
environmental quality act. i also received a couple of petitions within the last three weeks which i will hand to the commission's secretary, these are regarding save the concourse and would apply to the next items on the agenda, however, i provide them here for your information. during the public comment portion of this meeting, we heard speakers who raised issues concerning the project. many of the comments do not address environmental issues but were expressions of support or opposition to the project, you may wish to take some comments into account during your consideration of the project entitlements. some of the comments raised did address environmental issues or the environmental review process, and with respect to
1:39 pm
consideration of demolition of iq280 and changes to circulation in the project vicinity, this is a conceptual idea that is being studied but it is not advanced to a specific proposal and is not curtly undergoing environmental review. so, once a plan has been developed, it would undergo its own environmental review and that view would consider conditions in the project vicinity such as this project. having addressed these other matters, i would like to conclude my presentation regarding the certification of the eir, the evaluation of issues contained in the eir found that implementation of the proposed project would roult in project specific significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with respect to transportation at two intersections and the air quality both operational quality pollutants and construction and operational health risks that could not be
1:40 pm
mitigated to below a significant level. in addition, the eir found that implementation of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant and unavoidable cumulative land use impact identified in the eastern neighborhoods's eir with respect to pvr land supply, it would result in a cumulatively considerable to significant and cumulative transportation at five intersections, and health risk related to toxic air contaminants. therefore, the commission would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to the california environmental quality act, we could request the commission adopt the project before you,
1:41 pm
and to which the final eir was prepared, it's with the ceqa guidelines. this concludes my presentation on the matter unless the commission members have any comments? >> commissioner antonini? >> thank you for your comments and particular reference and i was going to make the same comment in regards to responses to public comment and as i understand it and you pointed out under ceqa, you can't take into consideration the impact that something that is conceptual has not been funded or analyzed, it's the other way around, when that particular project would come up and you would have to look at this and there's no way of knowing what impacks that would bring, it might improve traffic flow as i think has been the case with
1:42 pm
the freeway not being there, i think we had more congestion when that was being presented. the other question i have and typically the period of time between the end of the draft eir comment period and the final eir certification is much shorter than is the case here and i think i understand that because a selection was made of a particular variant and it needed -- while there weren't any changes, everything was analyzed already, but there was time to actually put this into -- frame it into a content that was particularly with response to the project itself and if you can give me another reason why there was such a long period of time. >> well, supplemental analysis was conducted for variant 3 so it was looked at including the
1:43 pm
transportation impacts particularly because there were significant and unavoidable impacts from the project, we wanted to see what the variation would be with variant 3. >> and that would be what i would expect or a supplemental eir certainly can be included in comments and responses and that's what's happened here. >> supplemental analysis. >> analysis, yeah. okay, thank you. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, could you remind me, on past agendas when we've had final certifications of the final environmental impact report and project approvals which follow for the two separate sites, we've also had an agenda item on ceqa findings? >> the ceqa findings are part of the next item. we have a draft motion for
1:44 pm
certification of the eir which includes findings within that motion, but the ceqa finagled themselves would be part of the next item. >> and why isn't it advertised that way? >> it's part of one of motions you have with the project approvals. >> but in past agendas, we've had a separate item on ceqa findings because i specifically remember reusing myself on the eir portions and, you know, considering that as a separate item and i was wondering why it's just included and not noticed to the public? >> i can't speak to that because i'm not usually part of that. >> my understanding, commissioner is since we started wrapping them into the motion themselves, city attorney's determined we didn't need a separate item for them because they're wrapped into the c motion and so there is
1:45 pm
sufficient notice in that respect. >> okay. >> commissioner antonini? >> one other thing that i will bring up more when the projects are before us but i do make reference to it now, it's on rtc91 which is a rendering of 801 brannan in the comments and responses and the design is quite a bit different than what is going to be before us, however, i have reason to believe that the massing is the same and that's what really we are considering when we're considering impacts under eir, but i will bring that up because the design that's before us in the final project appears different than at least the facades are considerably different than what is present on what is in rc91 of comments
1:46 pm
and responses and i don't see any problem with that as long as there is no change in massing. >> yes, that's correct, although this was updated in november, 2012. there may have been some design refinements but they don't affect -- >> yeah, that's what i'm expecting. i prefer the earlier one, but that's a design issue which we will take up at the time of the item itself, but i see no change in the massing and the impact that is being analyzed, so with that in mind, i would move to certify the final environmental impact report. i feel it's complete, accurate and adequate. >> second. >> on that motion to certify commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> so moved commissioners, that
1:47 pm
motion passes ewe nan nosily, 6-0, and places you under items 11a and b for cases 2012 .0700x at 801 brannan street and case number 2012 .0701x at 1 henry adams street for large project authorization. >> good afternoon, planning commissioners, ben fu, planning staff, the project proposes two developments, number one, additional structures at 801 brannan to allow the construction of a new six storey 68 foot tall building consisting of up to 432 dwelling units, parking for up to 432 spaces and planning code exceptions [inaudible] off street loading reduction, the second development is also requesting for a large project
1:48 pm
authorization pursuant to the same code section 329 to allow the construction of two new six storey 68 foot tall buildings at 1 henry adams street, for parking up to 164 spaces and planning code exceptions for street frontage and horizontal mass reduction. the proposed project ins the affordability requirements of the two projects through a combination of land dedication and on-site alternatives, 55 [inaudible] affordable units and land dedication will be provided at 801 brannan street side, prep s*ent tiffs of the mayor's office of housing, should the commissioners have any questions? based on a proposed project, the department determined that the project complies with the applicable requirements of
1:49 pm
planning code, is consistent with the plan. it includes significant site updates, the project design is consistent and respects the existing neighborhood character and is an appropriate infill development, it pays the appropriate impact fees, the project adds a total of 671 units with over 40 of them containing two bedrooms or more to the city's housing stock, the project utilizes land dedication alternative to partially satisfy the affordable houses requirements, this provides for a unique opportunity to develop a more housing, more affordable housing units that would be required through the on-site affordable housing options, staff recommends approval with the project with conditions and i'm available for conditions. thank you.
1:50 pm
>> is there any -- director lee, do you want to offer anything? >> commissioners, i was here to answer any questions the commission hay -- may have related to the land dedication and the mayor's office, so if the commissioners have questions, at the appropriate time, i would be happy to answer those questions. >> thank you. i'm opening it up to public comment. and you requested a longer period? 20 minutes, which given the size of the project, we will grant.
1:51 pm
>> sorry for the delay, commissioner, good afternoon, my name is amir mass si, i'm with archstone, currently owners and operators of apartment communities around
1:52 pm
the bay area and i want to talk to you about 801 brannan and 1 henry adams, since i know we only have 20 minutes for the presentation and you are all familiar with the locations, i'm going to run through the context for each of these sites, talk to you about the concourse a little bit and then pass things off to the design teams for further conversation, so if i could have the -- thank you. this works. okay, so for the eastern neighborhood's plan, these sites were zoned urban excuse with a 68 foot height limit and we know there was a lot of conversation back during the eastern neighborhoods process of land use in this part of town and we hope you will agree with us this is an opportunity to put mixed use communities
1:53 pm
near transportation and near jobs and near other services. now, with any project that's been in the pipeline for some long in san francisco, there's been a fair amount of community outreach that has been done, that culminated around three weeks ago and on-site open house that we held, we invited all the local neighborhood businesses and property owners to swing by and take a look at the plans and the result of that work was that we had 36 neighboring businesses and property owners joining sf hack and spir and endorsing that project and i believe you have all those endorsement letters in your packet. let me add that all told, the -- this has 201 affordable units, it looks like we have 206, it looks like the total number of affordable units will
1:54 pm
be somewhere between 23 and 24 percent of all the units constructed across these projects which is a pretty significant increase above what you would get if they were simply on-site, we're also escrowing three quarters of a million dollars for the mayor's office of housing to use as they begin their site prep work so it's another way to get the process on the affordable side started. there's other economic impacts which are significant in materials of fees, construction jobs and an increase over the real estate tax base that the city currently enjoys from the property as is. so, let me just get to what i think in a lot of ways is the heart of the matter which is the removal of the concourse, that's where we have received a lot of feedback from folks. the process that we've gone through here has been a lot
1:55 pm
different than what we were facing when we were doing the triangle project which is a fenced off lot and the bus yard, those are not sites where people had any economic, cultural or emotional attachment to the site, and we knew that by taking this work on that we'd be upsetting a vocal and important constituency in the city so we didn't take that act lightly and we tried to review the work in two different ways. let me show you the building, this is the shot of the building going on brannan, this is the floor plan as it exists, each of those dots are piers that come down from the roof, and the bulk of feedback that is that the removal of the concourse space, and we've looked at these in different ways, one is economic and the other is cultural.
1:56 pm
with respect to the economic portion as you see in the report that was done in 2007 by economics research associates and updated by steve in 2013, it doesn't take a lot of squinting to see the case for economic redevelopment, and that's in part because the -- if we can go back to -- thank you, the history of this building is that it was for a lot of years a railroad depot and in 1981, it came to exist as we currently know it when they connected the two depots and put a roof over the top of it. in the 80s and 90, it served a good purpose where it was a space where extra trade shows could happen and those trade shows over time have started to migrate to other states, particularly las vegas, other
1:57 pm
venues and to the web, what you have is a space that's used for consumer shows, private parties, corporate events, those types of things, and as a result of all that, we have in the last 9 years as an occupancy of 30% for the concourse space. bhiel the 30% of use is really important to those who comprise the 30%, there's really -- it's difficult to make an economic justification for not redeveloping a site that hollow 70% of the year and it's difficult to make that case when there are alternative sites in the bay area and in san francisco where a lot of these folks can go. [inaudible] i spoke to them a couple of years ago, i think they are upset over the loss of
1:58 pm
the space, but after subsequent conversations, after they went out and looked at alternative opportunities there are other spaces that they can use, it will go on in 2014 and beyond, it's our sense that when some of the users of the space are confronted with these other options, they will make similar decisions. the economic case does not mean that -- for that 30%, this isn't a big deal, and we understand that, and we also know that from many different angles, the cultural and emotional aspects of losing a space in which you have these memories is difficult, we didn't take that lightly and we spent a lot of time trying to think of how they can create a new set of memories for the next set of people coming into this area, we started working with sf maid so understand why there weren't any san francisco based manufacturers that could come into the space and be
1:59 pm
potentially users of the space on the ground floor. we didn't have a lot of luck with sf maid, the perfect user would sit at the intersection of the start-up culture and the food culture, the two things that are uniquely san francisco and in that process, we ask that sf maid introduce us to la kasena, it itself is a start-up but in essence, it acts to provide opportunities for minority owned businesses that are san francisco based to move out of their home kitchens into the la casina kitchen and into the marketplace and when we spoke to the executive director of la casina,

January 31, 2013 1:30pm-2:00pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Henry Adams 7, San Francisco 5, Antonini 5, Sugaya 3, Hillis 3, Us 3, Variance 2, Moore 2, Storey 2, The City 1, California 1, Bren Nan Street 1, Variant 1, Eir 1, Nosily 1, Ben Fu 1, Amir Mass Si 1, Borden 1, Mr. Hillis 1, Fong 1
Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color